After months of passionate hearings and debate, Downers Grove officials endorsed a five-story condominium building on the edge of downtown, leveling a major setback to residents who want to preserve a 19th-century historic home on the property.

Council members voted 5-2 Tuesday to authorize the construction of the 55-unit building at 936-942 Maple Ave.

Council members ultimately disagreed with frequent contentions from residents that the massive structure did not meet the requirements of the village's development plan or its zoning ordinance, and said the proposal met all requirements. Board members also said rejecting a proposal that aligns with the village's own rules would open the village to a lawsuit.

"This is an emotional argument for many people, but we don't get to consider emotions," Commissioner Becky Rheintgen said. "We have to be fair and apply the rules fairly for people to have confidence in us to make decisions. We don't get to pick where developments happen. We don't have the luxury of playing Monopoly."

Commissioner Greg Hose joined the majority in the vote but stopped far short of giving his endorsement to the project, calling it a "fundamental disconnect" between the zoning regulations and what residents would want to see built in that location.

"That this project is proposed for this site, despite the community's opposition, demonstrates a failure of planning and vision, and we're now required to live with it," Hose said.

The final vote was not without some last-minute procedural maneuvering. Commissioner Bob Barnett asked that the developer be required to scale down the front of the building, eliminate the planned loading zone on Maple Avenue, ensure all deliveries would happen on the condo property and not Maple Avenue, and move the front of the building back several feet.

Mayor Martin Tully then asked for the council to consider postponing its final vote until January, in part to have time to consider the changes Barnett suggested. Council members narrowly voted down that request, clearing the way for the final vote.

Tully and Commissioner David Olsen, who both lobbied for the postponement, refused to support the condo building.

Dozens of residents came forward during multiple hearings this fall, overwhelmingly opposing the condos and wanting to keep the home at 942 Maple safe from demolition. That home, commonly known as the Edwards home, dates to the 1890s and was most recently used as office space. The land for that home and the home next door were sold this year.

Hundreds signed a petition on Change.org opposing the condos and challenged various aspects, including the size of the building, its impact on property values and local economics, its impact on storm water and how it reflects the village's commitment to historic preservation.

Once it became clear that the majority of the council was primed to approve the condos, several could be heard scoffing in disgust.

"You gave us the hope that if we got more people involved, if people became aware, if people told you they didn't want this, then it would have an impact," said Hilary Denk, who started the online petition.

The discussion also steered into politics. Resident Gordon Goodman and former council member Bill Waldack suggested that board members would have to consider how their decisions affect their reputation and impact their candidacy for next year's council elections. Rheintgen and Sean Patrick Durkin, both up for re-election in April, sternly rebuffed the warning.

"The easy thing to do on this would be to vote no," Durkin said. "That's not what I was elected to do, and I'm not going to do that."

What will happen to the Edwards home remains unclear. Residents Michael and Mae Behm said they have approached the village with proposals to move the home to a property they own a few blocks east. David Sosin, the developer's attorney, said his clients are willing to work with anyone who wants to take on the project and that it would be months before any construction on the condos got underway.

"We believe very strongly that this is a real option if the community wants it," Michael Behm told council members this month. "This is something we feel passionate about. We feel the home should be saved. We feel the Edwards home belongs in this community."